If I had the funds to defend myself then I really don't think I would . Any damage that has been caused is history . An expensive chase through the courts would only line a solicitors pocket and bring it all up again . It really is better to just shut up and put it all down to experience .

The people that know me , and the people that really matter to me know the truth . I am lucky that I had such a supportive family , a partner that found it amusing when i handed her the phone when the first accusation was made , a boss and colleagues that backed me , and so many witnesses to prove she was making up the allegation . It could have been a lot worse if she had named somebody else . They might not have had the support I had .

She has moved darn sarf now , so hopefully our paths will never cross again .



Is it wrong for me to wish something bad really would happen to her ?

No, not at all.



Have you spoken to your MP about this, not just for your personal situation (but obviously with the emphasis on it) but for all victims of false rape accusations ?



If you still live in this area then you either live in the same constituency as me or the next one along, LibDem or Tory, believe it or not both MP's are decent blokes and very active with personal "issue" campaigns and I wonder if they'd be interested in this as their next cause, our MP has just succeeded in getting his private members bill against the beer tie through the Commons, the Tory took up the fight last year against the closure of the childrens heart surgery unit in Leeds and won and neither are afraid of using social media and the BBC for their cause, might be worth an email ?

Consent in itself is a fairly straightforward concept and is defined in English Law Section 74 Sexual Offences Act 2003 as "where a person agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."



I don't think there's any doubt that alcohol or other substances can impair the capacity to consent

Agreed. But drunken consent is still consent. And quite rightly so. Otherwise every man who takes a woman out for a drink or two, then has a bit of hanky panky, would be a rapist.



You have to be so drunk you pretty much have absolutely no idea what you are doing, before you are deemed too drunk to consent.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of sexual intercourse that takes place in the UK, on a Friday and Saturday night, is actually rape then?? ....

And equally obviously, at some point as you get increasingly drunk, you eventually reach a point where you are so extremely drunk, that you can no longer give consent. Until you reach that level of drunk, drunken consent is still consent.



The samples taken from woman Evans is convicted of raping tested Zero for alcohol content which is one major reason I can't understand how at 4am she could have been paralytic and incapable.

Mention nothing of the 'when I win big' tweets she made, which were only recovered by some American computer hacker who investigated her Twitter account.



And also, when the police went through her Facebook she had deleted all records of conversations between her and a friend that took place in the immediate aftermath of the incident.



The whole Ched Evans case screams unsafe conviction, It will be interesting to see how the public react if / when it is overturned on appeal.

I wonder what the "victim" makes of it all? She is in the weird situation of having seen a man convicted of raping her, when she never accused him, and does not remember any rape (or indeed, apparently, anything). It's a weird situation where CPS has decided for her that there's a reasonable prospect she was raped, and that it was appropriate to ask the audience.

Wasnt it reported that she'd gone out late and had about 10 drinks in less than an hour? Which might have left her system by the time she was tested (i dont know when that was), but would probably have affected her quite badly when it was all absorbed. It doesnt appear to be disputed that she was sick and wet the bed which suggests she was paralytic and incapable at some point.

I have observed many people, in my time, who were so drunk as to be incapable of any meaningful consent, and they are not hard to spot. In the video of the "victim" arriving at the hotel:

[urlhttp://chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.webm[/url

... I do not see such a person. I see a woman in towering heels waling back out of a hotel, squatting down on the pavement, picking up a pizza box and walking back in to the hotel, all unaided, and all seemingly under perfect control. I would never expect a drunk and incapable person of being able to do this. I discuss this as a lay person who could equally have been on such a jury, and what I would have made of it had I been, not as any sort of claimed expert.



As to whether on her own evidence she could have been paralytic:







She had quite a lot for a slight female in quite a short time, and I can believe that at max alcohol (which would have been around 3 am when she had her last drink, she would have been the most affected. I can accept she may have been unsteady at that time. She was not incontinent at that time, as she was on CCTV going into a doorway and urinating there.



But she didn't drink anything else. And then she spent an hour eating a kebab in a kebab shop. She approached footballer 1 (not the other way around) and at some point they went and bought a pizza. They did not arrive at the hotel until 04:08 and that is what you see on the video.



Her "when I win big" Tweets that came to light only months after the verdict remain unexplained. But what I find the most difficult to accept is how the jury reached a conclusion that the woman in that video was able to give consent to footballer 1 yet immediately afterwards, somehow became incapable of giving consent to no. 2. It is completely and fundamentally illogical, even if you ignore the fact that the ONLY evidence re consent was that of the footballers.

Presumably, the jury decided that in going back to the hotel with footballer 1 they both went with the intention that sexual activity would occur. Why else would 2 strangers get a taxi to a Premier Inn outside Rhyl at 4am?



Footballer 2 just turned up at the hotel uninvited by the victim, invited by footballer 1 with the message "i've got a bird". When she went to the hotel with footballer 1 the jury probably decided that she hadnt consented to a 2nd person joining them.

Not probably, but certainly, as that point (consent) was the single issue in the case. The point is, ON WHAT REASONABLE BASIS could they be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the "victim" - who never alleged she was raped, attacked, or anything else - hadn't consented, when the only evidence on consent was of the footballers, who both said she did?



Specifically, my concern is that, having decided that she WAS in a fit state to consent to sex with no.1 (which the jury did, as they found him not guilty), it can ONLY have been her capability to give valid consent that potted Evans. And I can't see how logically her ability to consent suddenly can be proved to have ceased, in the total absence of any evidence that it did, or even why it may have done.